teleological argument

Question 1

25 mark plan:
does the order of the universe prove that God exists?

Answer 1

intro: teleological argument do not prove God exists
define: teleological argument, spatial order, temporal order

para1: pallets watch analogy

response: Darwins evolutionary theory

response to response: swinburnes temporal order

response: mulitple universes

Argument against: even if the universe is designed, the designer might not be god.

conclusion: both teleological arguments from spatial + temporal order fail. Even if they succeeded doesn’t neccessarily mean the designer is god.

Question 2

what’s the teleological argument

Answer 2

• know as argument from design.
• aims: show certain features of world r so complex + suited for purpose that their existence can only be explained with reference to designer (God).

Divided in 2 forms:
- from spatial order = certain features within nature (e.g. eye) MUST BE DESIGNED by god
-from temporal order = laws of nature (e.g. gravity) must be designed by god

Question 3

teleological argument from spatial order
Paleys desgin argument

Answer 3

Most famous version
WATCH ANAOLGY
compares man-made object (watch) with certain aspects of nature (pebble).
if u found pebble on beach u would assume its been there forever but wouldn’t assume this for finding a watch on beach.
Difference between watch and pebble = watch composed of many parts organized for a purpose.
Paley argues having many parts for a purpose is hallmark of design.
Aspects of nature e.g. human eye also composed of many parts also organized for purpose.
so like watch, nature + aspects of nature have hallmarks of design but “with the difference on the side of nature of being greater + more”.
For something to have been designed it must have a designer. And given how grand + wonderous nature is paley argues this designer is god.

Question 4

Intro Humes design argument

Answer 4

-writen before paley, hume considered part of the teleogical argument he rejects.
-similar to paleys.
-differs: paleys claims having many parts organised fit for purpose is a property of design. Hume draws anaology between the fitting of means to ends in nature and in human design.

Question 5

response to teleological argument from SO
Humes objection
problem with the analogy

Answer 5

-response to his own teleogical argument points our various problems with drawing analogy between design of man made objects and design in nature:
-man-made objects r very different from natural objects (eyes legs brain)
-we can observe mad-made items being designed but we have no such experience of this in the case of nature.
-even if there are examples of design within the universe it is a fallacy to conclude that this shows that the universe is itself designed because we cannot generalize from parts of the universe to the universe as a whole.

such differences weaken the analogy between the design of man made items and the apparent design of nature.

Question 6

Humes objection to TA from SO
infinite time, finite matter

Answer 6

-objects teleogical argument on basis that there may be better explanation of the order within nature for example 2 claims r true:
-time is infinite
-matter is finite
H argues: its inevitable that matter will organise itself into combimnations that appear to be

Question 7

Humes objection to TA from SO
causation

Question 8

Humes objection to TA from SO
spatial order

Question 9

objection to TA from SO
Darwin: evolution by natural selection

Question 10

Swinburnes telelogical argument from temporal order

Question 11

whats humes design argument summarised.

Answer 11

-The “fitting of means to ends” in nature (e.g. the many parts of the eye enables vision) resemble the “fitting of means to ends” in human design (e.g. the many parts of a watch to tell the time)
-similar effect have similar causes
-the cause of human designs are minds
-and this mind is god given the grandeur of natures design.